Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 12/9/06, Digital Image Studio, discombobulated, unleashed: My archives thank dog for the Adobe DNG convertor. Bill's Rottie? Or you got a new puppy? ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Well, it depends on your intended use. If you could send the said archive to someone else or you wanna access it or weird/obsolete/... systems then of course using a standard is very important. However if your use is more on a backup (with much importance on the size of it) and/or willing to archive not for size but for files health issues then zip is clearly prehistoric. A PEF file which is damage will most probably be good enough for the trash. A well done archive like RAR/ACE/7ZIP has quite good security built-in: it has a couple CRC (and better) method for salvaging the content of the archive in case you'd need it. It does NOT replace the need to make multiple backups, but it helps you not loosing information which is recorded on it. Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:08:27AM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote: IIRC, the *istD not only does not compress RAW files, but also stores pixels in 16bits instead of 12, taking up 30% more space than necessary in the process. Yes... quite a brain-dead move on Pentax's part. As I pointed out at the time, this might have been forced on them by the TIFF software they were using (a PEF file, like RAW files from Canon Nikon, conforms to the overall structure of a TIFF-EP file, so they could have been using a TIFF file I/O package to create it). Strictly speaking packing two 12-bit quantities into three 8-bit bytes isn't allowed for in the TIFF specs, which assume byte alignement for any quantity larger than four bits. It also allowed for easy expansion to 14-bit or 16-bit values, should sensor technology make that practical. As we all know, that hasn't happened (yet), but that's with the benefit of hindsight. Making that call five years ago would have been considerably more difficult; after all, people still thought full-frame sensors might be practical in the short term. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
IIRC, the *istD not only does not compress RAW files, but also stores pixels in 16bits instead of 12, taking up 30% more space than necessary in the process. Yes... quite a brain-dead move on Pentax's part. 10 Mpix should take 20 Mbytes if sampled at 16 bits, 16 Mbytes at 12bits (without the attached JPG preview). While lossless compression works quite well with 8 bit pictures, I've always had inefficient compression rates with 16bit images (I assume it gets harder to find two identical pixels to compress!). If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. That's not out of line to get 50%. My experience on using general-purpose compression algorithms on my -DS RAW files is about 65-75% of their original size at best (bzip2) to be about 7MB average after compression. Given about a meg of that is incompressibly wasted the full-sized embedded JPG, lossless compression can get them down to 6 MB without trouble. Canon's algorithm appears to be more optimized for images, because a buddy's RebelXT averages about 7MB per 8 Mp frame that'd be a little over 5 MB if it were 6 Mp. pretty much inline with the 11MB/10Mp claim. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 12/09/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It also allowed for easy expansion to 14-bit or 16-bit values, should sensor technology make that practical. As we all know, that hasn't happened (yet), but that's with the benefit of hindsight. Making that call five years ago would have been considerably more difficult; after all, people still thought full-frame sensors might be practical in the short term. My archives thank dog for the Adobe DNG convertor. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Well, it's not a problem and I may even learn something. :) - Original Message - From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 1:14 PM Subject: Re: Estimated File Size K10D On 10/09/06, J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm, not being an electrical engineer, physicist or mathematician, it's all greek to me. Hi James, I guess that's the problem when what are actually highly technical issues are discussed and debated in a forum like this, the people who are electrical engineers and/or physicists have a hard time explaining what to them looks pretty plain and simple whereas it's pretty much Greek to everyone else (sorry Kostas et al). Tis' good to see another East Aussie in the crowd, I was thinking of heading to the Capitol for the Tulip festival but may end up at Bathurst on the long weekend this year instead :-( Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both Hmm, 16 bit per CC? See the following table, I opened two files from RAW originals one almost black and the other one of the 16-45mm test images I posted last week and saved them several ways: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/Image_compression_test.html -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Hi Shel, On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:55:09 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've tried compressing TIFF files made from PEF files. They invariably end up a little larger than the converted TIFF file. That is most likely because most TIFF files already apply lossless compression. TIFF is just a container format, and it does offer the possibility of compressing the contents. I know Photoshop offers this as an option when saving as TIFF ... They probably use a Lempel-Zif compression, much like ZIP. Others have also reported similar results. Are you able to compress a TIFF and get a smaller file as a result? I'd love to know how you do it. If you save an inage as UNCOMPRESSED TIFF from Photoshop, e regular ZIP will be able to compress it down, taking perhaps upto 40% of the size off (heavily depending on image content/detail :-) Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Hi James, On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:56:52 +1000, J and K Messervy wrote: Umm, not being an electrical engineer, physicist or mathematician, it's all greek to me. Well I am (an electrical engineer :-) and there ARE some interesting figures in there: - Saturation signal: 40K electrons Meaning THIS particular sensor will saturate a well (one pixel) when it has a charge of about 4 electrons. This would be the maximum WHITE level to be recorded. - Quantum efficiency, about 0.33 Meaning you need an average of 3 photons (light :-) to get a single electron added to the charge of the pixel. (meaning about 12 photons to reach saturation) - Total sensor noise: 17 electrons Meaning the noise from the sensor alone is 1 / 2350 of the saturation level, which is just over 11 stops in range ... This is the major factor in setting the minimum recordable light levels (BLACK), but I am unsure how close you could put it to get reasonable noise levels. You probably need to be several stops ABOVE this point to have acceptable shadow detail left ... And the rest of the electronics will add some noise too. Of course this is just ONE sensor, from KODAK, and the values may not be representative for the ones in Pentax cameras :-) But it IS nearly the same technology ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the rest of the electronics will add some noise too. As does the exposure time, of course, unfortunately in the case of this sensor it's not quoted in electrons/second which is very easy to apply to the 40k electron well scenario. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
And you can believe Rob. He filled one pixel on his *istD and took the photons out one by one with his trusty tweezers counting them. Do I need to write, GRIN!? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- ryan brooks wrote: On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: This limit is believed to be 4 per pixel? Who believes this and why? I do. It's all about the well size, Rob posted the chart earlier. -R -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote: what to them looks pretty plain and simple whereas it's pretty much Greek to everyone else (sorry Kostas et al). No worries, we invented all that stuff, didn't we. Kostas (not :-)) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
It hasn't worked like that for me and for numerous other people. Zipping a TIFF has always resulted in a file that was the same size or slightly larger than the original. Shel [Original Message] From: Jan van Wijk If you save an inage as UNCOMPRESSED TIFF from Photoshop, e regular ZIP will be able to compress it down, taking perhaps upto 40% of the size off (heavily depending on image content/detail :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
I'm not sure what this debate is all about but I did a very quick test using Photoshop CS2 and the standard UNIX zip implementation in Mac OS X. - Took a typical JPEG image file directly out of the Fuji F30. - Opened in Photoshop and Save As to a TIFF file, uncompressed. - Zipped the Tiff file. - Save As the same file to a LZW compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFz file. - Save As the same file to a Zip compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFzip file. Here are the results: (bytes - file name) tiff 18281440 DSCF0235.tif 11001877 DSCF0235.tif.zip tiff with LZ compression 8420252 DSCF0235z.tif 8371603 DSCF0235z.tif.zip tiff with zip compression 7687904 DSCF0235zip.tif 7666264 DSCF0235zip.tif.zip In all cases, the TIFF with compression produces a smaller file size, and in all cases doing compression with zip afterwards reduces the file size by a small amount further. Zip compression of the uncompressed tiff runs about 40%, zip compression of the compressed formats runs less than 1%. Godfrey On Sep 10, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It hasn't worked like that for me and for numerous other people. Zipping a TIFF has always resulted in a file that was the same size or slightly larger than the original. From: Jan van Wijk If you save an inage as UNCOMPRESSED TIFF from Photoshop, e regular ZIP will be able to compress it down, taking perhaps upto 40% of the size off (heavily depending on image content/detail :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
7zip will produce quite better result as will RAR and ACE formats (but7zip still the best and it is free). Of course 7zip format is not a very common standard unfortunately. 2006/9/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm not sure what this debate is all about but I did a very quick test using Photoshop CS2 and the standard UNIX zip implementation in Mac OS X. - Took a typical JPEG image file directly out of the Fuji F30. - Opened in Photoshop and Save As to a TIFF file, uncompressed. - Zipped the Tiff file. - Save As the same file to a LZW compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFz file. - Save As the same file to a Zip compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFzip file. Here are the results: (bytes - file name) tiff 18281440 DSCF0235.tif 11001877 DSCF0235.tif.zip tiff with LZ compression 8420252 DSCF0235z.tif 8371603 DSCF0235z.tif.zip tiff with zip compression 7687904 DSCF0235zip.tif 7666264 DSCF0235zip.tif.zip In all cases, the TIFF with compression produces a smaller file size, and in all cases doing compression with zip afterwards reduces the file size by a small amount further. Zip compression of the uncompressed tiff runs about 40%, zip compression of the compressed formats runs less than 1%. Godfrey On Sep 10, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It hasn't worked like that for me and for numerous other people. Zipping a TIFF has always resulted in a file that was the same size or slightly larger than the original. From: Jan van Wijk If you save an inage as UNCOMPRESSED TIFF from Photoshop, e regular ZIP will be able to compress it down, taking perhaps upto 40% of the size off (heavily depending on image content/detail :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
To me, there's extremely little value in using a compression format which is not a well accepted standard. Zip and GZip are well accepted. Godfrey On Sep 10, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Thibouille wrote: 7zip will produce quite better result as will RAR and ACE formats (but7zip still the best and it is free). Of course 7zip format is not a very common standard unfortunately. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
IIRC, the *istD not only does not compress RAW files, but also stores pixels in 16bits instead of 12, taking up 30% more space than necessary in the process. 10 Mpix should take 20 Mbytes if sampled at 16 bits, 16 Mbytes at 12bits (without the attached JPG preview). While lossless compression works quite well with 8 bit pictures, I've always had inefficient compression rates with 16bit images (I assume it gets harder to find two identical pixels to compress!). If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. Patrice Rick Womer a écrit : Nifty! My ist D give me 144 PEFs on a 2 gig card. Rick --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: K10D uses lossless compression for its RAW files. They're claiming 185 on a 2-gig card, which works out to be about 11 Meg each. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. Nope. They're 12-bit files. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50% compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g. for storage units with built-in compression chips); it seems like this has little to do with the actual performance of the compression algorithm. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 09/09/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50% compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g. for storage units with built-in compression chips); it seems like this has little to do with the actual performance of the compression algorithm. My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50% compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g. for storage units with built-in compression chips); it seems like this has little to do with the actual performance of the compression algorithm. My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. Meaning a compressed size of about 2/3 of the original. That sounds realistic to me, too. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/09/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50% compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g. for storage units with built-in compression chips); it seems like this has little to do with the actual performance of the compression algorithm. My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? rg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 9/9/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? Most likely. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Estimated File Size K10D
And removal of noise _can_ mean improved dynamic range, can't it? Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: 9. september 2006 17:56 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Estimated File Size K10D On 9/9/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? Most likely. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Depends on how and where in the image creation process the noise is removed. Tim Øsleby wrote: And removal of noise _can_ mean improved dynamic range, can't it? Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: 9. september 2006 17:56 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Estimated File Size K10D On 9/9/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? Most likely. Dave -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Estimated File Size K10D
Also, effective resolution through a revealing of image detail as a result of noise removal.(?) Jack --- Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And removal of noise _can_ mean improved dynamic range, can't it? Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: 9. september 2006 17:56 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Estimated File Size K10D On 9/9/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is 10-11MB 12bit files. So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? Most likely. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Tim Øsleby wrote: And removal of noise _can_ mean improved dynamic range, can't it? Definitely. The practical dynamic range is considered to be (full-well-capacity)/(noise). Or rather, that figure expressed in decibels, but you know what I mean. The problem is that you can't really remove the noise in an image processor or image processing stage. You can remove image artifacts that are assumed to be caused by noise, but you have no way of knowing if the assumptions are right, since noise is essentially random variation added to the data. If, on the other hand, you can prevent the noise from entering the system... - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 10:46:48AM -0500, Gonz wrote: So what about the 22bit A/D? What are they doing with the other 10 bits of information? Are they using it for some type of noise removal? There are no extra 10 bits of information. The original sensor is unlikely to yield more than 12-bit; data as has been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available to be counted (which would fit easily in 16 bits, at the most). As there is thermal and electrical noise making it difficult to get useful signal into (or out of) the low-order bits, there's unlikely to be even 12 bits of information present. It's a good idea to add a couple of extra bits to the processing path to prevent additional round-off errors accumulating, especially if there are non-linear processing steps such as gamma correction, but I find it hard to believe that more than 16 bits would be needed. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
John Francis wrote: as has been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available to be counted Wouldn't the number of photons vary considerably with exposure time (shutter speed)? -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
as has been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available to be counted Wouldn't the number of photons vary considerably with exposure time (shutter speed)? It's also a question of the number of electrons available. When a photon hits the sensor, its energy will be used to move an electron from one place to another, thus building up a charge (in an ideal senor - I think a practical one will sometimes require more than one photon.) There is, however, a limit to the number of electrons that may jump and/or be held as a charge (no, not held in charge...). This limit is believed to be approximately 4 per pixel or photosite for the 10MP sensor. So while there may be more photons around under good light or in a long exposure, 4 is the maximum number that can actually be counted. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Mark Roberts wrote: John Francis wrote: as has been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available to be counted Wouldn't the number of photons vary considerably with exposure time (shutter speed)? No, just with exposure. Given equivalent exposure, you should get the same number of photons. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Toralf Lund wrote: as has been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available to be counted Wouldn't the number of photons vary considerably with exposure time (shutter speed)? It's also a question of the number of electrons available. When a photon hits the sensor, its energy will be used to move an electron from one place to another, thus building up a charge (in an ideal senor - I think a practical one will sometimes require more than one photon.) There is, however, a limit to the number of electrons that may jump and/or be held as a charge (no, not held in charge...). This limit is believed to be approximately 4 per pixel or photosite for the 10MP sensor. This limit is believed to be 4 per pixel? Who believes this and why? -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Mark Roberts a écrit : Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. Nope. They're 12-bit files. Then, it's 15MB uncompressed, and 11MB is a 73% lossless compression, which seems much more likely. Each time I tried 16-bit TIFF lossless compression (from scanned film), I got files bigger than their uncompressed version! So I hardly believed in the 50% 16bit thing... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: Mark Roberts a écrit : Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit. Nope. They're 12-bit files. Then, it's 15MB uncompressed, and 11MB is a 73% lossless compression, which seems much more likely. Each time I tried 16-bit TIFF lossless compression (from scanned film), I got files bigger than their uncompressed version! So I hardly believed in the 50% 16bit thing... What I'm really looking forward to is native DNG format capture. That'll remove one step from my workflow :) -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: This limit is believed to be 4 per pixel? Who believes this and why? I do. It's all about the well size, Rob posted the chart earlier. -R -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Each time I tried 16-bit TIFF lossless compression (from scanned film), I got files bigger than their uncompressed version! So I hardly believed in the 50% 16bit thing... It't difficult to compare film scans, the noise is often very high and compression algorithms don't compress noise very well. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
ryan brooks wrote: On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: This limit is believed to be 4 per pixel? Who believes this and why? I do. It's all about the well size, Rob posted the chart earlier. Sorry this is all getting a bit too silly for me. I frown on pixel peeping. Photon peeping is taking a bad thing another step further! I think I'll confirm/disprove all this speculation the old fashioned way - by waiting until the K10D is available and trying it out. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, ryan brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's all about the well size, Rob posted the chart earlier. If you are interested check out the Kodak KAF-10010 spec sheet, it's a 10MP APS+ (31.7mm diag) CCD sensor with 6.8 µm square photosites (*ist D etc sensor has 7.80μm2 photosites). There are some interesting and informative graphs in the associated pdf http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-10010_product/show/KAF-10010_productSpecifications -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Umm, not being an electrical engineer, physicist or mathematician, it's all greek to me. James M - Original Message - From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Estimated File Size K10D On 10/09/06, ryan brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's all about the well size, Rob posted the chart earlier. If you are interested check out the Kodak KAF-10010 spec sheet, it's a 10MP APS+ (31.7mm diag) CCD sensor with 6.8 µm square photosites (*ist D etc sensor has 7.80μm2 photosites). There are some interesting and informative graphs in the associated pdf http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-10010_product/show/KAF-10010_productSpecifications -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Rob, I've tried compressing TIFF files made from PEF files. They invariably end up a little larger than the converted TIFF file. Others have also reported similar results. Are you able to compress a TIFF and get a smaller file as a result? I'd love to know how you do it. Shel [Original Message] From: Digital Image Studio Each time I tried 16-bit TIFF lossless compression (from scanned film), I got files bigger than their uncompressed version! So I hardly believed in the 50% 16bit thing... It't difficult to compare film scans, the noise is often very high and compression algorithms don't compress noise very well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm, not being an electrical engineer, physicist or mathematician, it's all greek to me. Hi James, I guess that's the problem when what are actually highly technical issues are discussed and debated in a forum like this, the people who are electrical engineers and/or physicists have a hard time explaining what to them looks pretty plain and simple whereas it's pretty much Greek to everyone else (sorry Kostas et al). Tis' good to see another East Aussie in the crowd, I was thinking of heading to the Capitol for the Tulip festival but may end up at Bathurst on the long weekend this year instead :-( Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 10/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob, I've tried compressing TIFF files made from PEF files. They invariably end up a little larger than the converted TIFF file. Others have also reported similar results. Are you able to compress a TIFF and get a smaller file as a result? I'd love to know how you do it. An uncompressed TIFF file (converted 1:1 pixels) will always be larger than its parent PEF, the former will be a 24 or 48 bit per pixel file whereas the PEF consists of an uncompressed 12 bit per pixel TIFF + a low res JPG file. When compressing any file the detail level it contains will be the major factor in the degree of compression that can be obtained for any particular compression quality level. In other words a TIFF produced from PEF of a dark frame (with NR on) will inevitably compress more effectively that a sharp image of some sand. Just to confirm are you speaking of enabling LZW compression in the TIFF or zipping a TIFF after saving it? Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Both ... Shel [Original Message] From: Digital Image Studio Just to confirm are you speaking of enabling LZW compression in the TIFF or zipping a TIFF after saving it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Tis' good to see another East Aussie in the crowd, I was thinking of heading to the Capitol for the Tulip festival but may end up at Bathurst on the long weekend this year instead :-( Indeed :( I would considering making the pilgrimage too, but I'll be in Toronto then. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Each time I tried 16-bit TIFF lossless compression (from scanned film), I got files bigger than their uncompressed version! So I hardly believed in the 50% 16bit thing... It't difficult to compare film scans, the noise is often very high and compression algorithms don't compress noise very well. Indeed. The raw (CRW) compression on my old Canon S45, and presumably other cameras, took an interesting approach. The highest 8 bits were compressed as bytes (only RLE I think), then the remaining bits were in a separate set of planes (I can't remember if its raw was 10 or 12 bit now). Anyway, the 8 bit data didn't have too much of the noise in, so compressed reasonably well, where the rest was left uncompressed. I'm not sure if this was a clever design to maximise compression; or the fact they had 8 bit raw files first, then tacked the extra data on the end as an afterthought in later cameras. In any case, it seemed to work okay. Maybe we could revert back to planar image formats; save everything as compressed IFF ILBM or something :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Estimated File Size K10D
Any guesses as to the RAW file size on the forthcoming K10D? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
On 08.09.2006, at 19:40 , Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any guesses as to the RAW file size on the forthcoming K10D? Probably about 15-16MB just like in Nikon D200. Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
I just \had a look at my GFM D200 shots. The Nef files are 15.4 to 15.9 Meg in size and the fine JPG are 3.2 to 3.9 is size. Dave Quoting Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 08.09.2006, at 19:40 , Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any guesses as to the RAW file size on the forthcoming K10D? Probably about 15-16MB just like in Nikon D200. Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
David J Brooks wrote: I just \had a look at my GFM D200 shots. The Nef files are 15.4 to 15.9 Meg in size and the fine JPG are 3.2 to 3.9 is size. K10D uses lossless compression for its RAW files. They're claiming 185 on a 2-gig card, which works out to be about 11 Meg each. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Estimated File Size K10D
Nifty! My ist D give me 144 PEFs on a 2 gig card. Rick --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: K10D uses lossless compression for its RAW files. They're claiming 185 on a 2-gig card, which works out to be about 11 Meg each. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
